Author: Chris Henrichsen

December 16 marks my 5 year anniversary on the bloggernacle.

It all started on a December morning in 2005 at Utah Valley State College. I walked into the adjunct instructor workroom and was greeted by my colleague John Crawford. John and I talked a good bit in that room at different times over the years. We had also team taught a class together. That morning John asked me if I wanted to join a blog he had started. It was call Faith-Promoting Rumor.

My very first post was on…John Rawls.

At first, blogging was ackward for me. Then I got very comfortable. Maybe, too comfortable. I have commented at many blogs over the years, and I still do at a good many. I am not sure what value comes from being a frequents commentator on blog threads. Probably not much. Either way, I have driven up the comment counts on many a thread. Just doing my part.

I have taken shots at Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, and Kenny Rogers.

My favorite post would like be my first post of the redistribution of wealth. Though, I further articulated the idea in posts both here and at BCC. However, it was that first post that staked out my philosophical position. It also started a bit of a firestorm. I like firestorms.

I have quit the bloggernacle twice. Once this year even. However, I cannot stay away.

This last year, I have actually met a number of people from the bloggernacle. Some of those meetings were…uncomfortable. Yet, others were like being reunited with long lost friends.

While FPR is my blogging home, By Common Consent is my blogging church. It is where I go to make sense of the world. I once called them the cool kids, I regret this now because of the tension it caused. I said it because I was jealous. When it comes down to it, I do not like a lot of Mormons and I disagree with very few…but I often remind myself that it cannot be that bad. Kristine, John C, Kevin Barney, Mark and Aaron B also belong to this Church. I want to belong to the same Church as them…even if they are not like the people I see at Church.

In some ways, the ‘nacle is big family. Ardis of Keepapitchin is my big sister on the bloggernacle. Do not mess with my family. The guys at Juvenille Instructor are my blogging cousins, not the distant cousins that you hope to avoid (that would be M*), but the favorite cousins you cannot wait to see again.

One of the reasons that I love Faith-Promoting Rumor is because they have loved me. I am not easy to love. Well, the blogging me is not easy to love.

What has blogging done for me? It has given me a circle of associates even when I have felt abandoned in Provo or when I have felt cultural isolated in Casper. Once, while serving as Elder’s Quorum president outside of Rexburg, the assignment came down from the stake to get volunteers for a phone bank that would call voters in California and ask them to support Prop. 8. This is the closest I have ever come to vomiting as an adult. My wife sympathized with my awkward situation, but I had no body else to turn to. I emailed the back channel FPR group. I wondered if I should resign my calling. Responses from Smallaxe, TT, Mogget, and John C helped me though it. In the end, I turned the assignment over to my secretary in the quorum. I told my bishop that I would not have anything to do with it. He told me that neither would he. I clashed with the RS President a bit in ward council about the information that was circulating about Prop 8. But because of the wise advice of Smallaxe, TT, Mogget, and John C…I stayed in my calling (which I loved), I kept my job and I stayed in the Church.

The phone bank never actually came about. Somebody on the political side of things must have realized that Mormon stakes organizing in other states would be a bad idea.

When asking my Facebook friends how they would describe my blogging, one said that I had a certain bellicose charm. I think that works. Nitsav once described me as an “eye poker” and he was right. That said, my blogging aggression has a purpose. I like to think of it as a breeching experiment. I am actively defying the norms of blogging behavior at times, other times defying the political and theological norms of Mormonism. This is not to say that I do not believe what I write, but a primary purpose in writing what I do and acting like I do…is to see how others react. Many of you have made it all worth it.

Here are some of the highlights:

My First Post

My favorite “Why the Redistribution of Wealth?”

My MLK (at BCC)

Equality, Social Unity, and Cooperation (at BCC)

Socialism! (at BCC)

Elder Jensen and the Exploitation of Sacred Moments

Patrick Henry and Right-Wing (Anti-) Constitutionalism

Student Comment on Social Justice, Rawls, and Chris H.

Cosmopolitanism: An Alternative to Patriotism

On the Saying “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin”

Rawlsian Social Justice Themes in Mormon Thought

BYU-Idaho College Democrats-in-Exile

The Good Samaritan as The Other

Reject and Denounce: Obama and his church

I know that Mitt is true.

“My Husband is a Socialist”

My Ideological Journey

The care perspective was first identified by Carol Gilligan who argued that there are two moral voices: justice and care. Justice, the masculine approach to morality, focuses on universal abstract principles such as equality, impartiality, and universality. Within a Mormon context, I think the principle of agency, as well as obedience would be added to this list.

The classic justice perspective is Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. The categorical imperative asserts that we should act according to principles that we would want to be followed as universal laws. In other words, when I identify the principle of a given act, I must ask whether I would want all people to follow that principle in all cases. If the answer is in the affirmative, then that is a morally justified act. If the answer is negative, then I should not act upon such principles.

The categorical imperative in not particularly sexist (sexism violates the “humanity as an ends” principle of the categorical imperative), but it represents a type of abstraction which removes moral judgments from real world relationships and conditions. This is of interest to feminists because women not only value relationships but also because they often are burden with responsibilities which do not allow them to ignore those relationships. These are primarily dependency relationships where some children, the disabled, and other rely on the other for survival.

Additionally, and most problematic for feminists, Kant views actions driven by feelings or inclination as insufficient. In order for actions to be considered moral, they must be based on abstract principle. Yet, in dependency relationships, whether it is caring for a child or an elderly parent, the obligation to care is often driven by emotional sentiment such as love or even pity and not so much “out of principle.”

This marginalization of emotion in moral decision making is picked up by Lawrence Kohlberg in his psychological analysis of moral decision making. In his hierarchy of moral approaches, Kohlberg favors those that fit the Kantian model of impartiality and places decisions that take relationships and emotions into account lower on the hierarchy. Gilligan responds to Kohlberg, and indirectly to Kant, by claiming that the care perspective is a different (and equally valid) approach to morality. Care is not a lesser approach to morality.

Marilyn Friedman argues that Gilligan makes a mistake in accepting the care/justice dichotomy. For Friedman, care and justice are essentially the same things. They are not expressing different moral perspectives, but instead they both are expressing a deep commitment to other individuals. While they may at times be expressed in different vocabularies and styles, they represent the same moral perspective. While I feel that there may be a distinct concepts of justice and care, I agree with Friedman that Gilligan mistakenly sets the two concepts up as opposing forces. Instead they should be viewed as going hand in hand because they are both key to social cooperation at any number of levels.

Nel Noddings is among the first to introduce care as a “feminine” approach to moral theory. For Noddings, care involves two aspects: caring for others and being cared for. Not only should we care for others (a deontological obligation) but we need to be cared for. In this way, care is a central, rather than peripheral, component of moral life. Noddings, a philosopher of education, uses the idea of care to place focus on caring relationships between adults (parents and teachers) and young children. Joan Tronto is critical of Noddings for placing too much emphasis on the family as the site of care by ignoring institutional forms of care and the need for rights protections within both familial and institutional care relationships.

Both Virginia Held and Michael Slote advance the ethic of care as a viable stand alone alternative to deontology, utilitarianism, and social contract theory. In both of their approaches, they take a rather Aristotelian direction. In many ways the ethic of care has a certain affinity for Aristotelian virtue ethics because both value emotional feeling and life experience. Held and Slote diverge from both Gilligan and Noddings by rejecting the gender-based usage of the care concept. Where Gilligan and Noddings treat the concept of care as a predominantly feminine attribute. While traditionally women have been viewed as the caring and the care-givers, Slote tries to break care from this secondary role by arguing that the ethic of care is actually preferable to the other approaches. Tronto’s political conception of care likewise argues that care is a sound basis for egalitarian politics and not just a feminist approach to ethics.

Obedience

Noddings highlights the story of Abraham and Isaac as an example of how the justice perspective, particularly the emphasis on obedience to abstract rules, can blind us to lived morality. In this case, Abraham obeys an unseen and abstracted God and places said god above his son and wife. Isn’t great that Abraham loved God so much that he would even sacrifice his son? Well, from the ethic of care the answer would be: heck no.

Now one may say that I am unfairly condemning Abraham, but keep in mind that I do not think the story actually took place. It is a figurative story meant to teach obedience…a rather problematic conception of obedience.

Continue reading “Care and Obedience (Mormonism and Feminist Theory)”

I was reminded of this by the recent BCC post about smart phones at Church. Thanks, Scott.

In the postmodern era, we do not need to be under the surveillance of our overlords, masters, or prison guards. Foucault points out that behavior was once controlled by torture and physical harm, or at least the threat thereof. This is best represented by public torture and public hangings (though we should not forget burning witches at the stake).

In the early 1800s, in an attempt to “humanize” punishment, punishment was transformed from torture to surveillance. The hallmark of this “advance” was the Panopticon prison which allowed for constant surveillance from a central location, whether from the guard tower or the hallway. Rather than having the constant oversight of many guards, there is self-control because the inmate knows that wherever they are they could be seen by their overseers.

For Foucault, we are constantly under a form of self-surveillance as we worry about our appearances. This is not so much our physical appearance but the way in which our behavior is viewed. Somebody could be watching, so we best conform at all times.

As we discussed surveillance and the technological means by which we are monitored, such as store security cameras or camera attaches to traffic signals, my mind quickly turned to those forms of contemporary technology which in many ways are devices of surveillance, though we likely do not think of them that way. The two examples that I want to use are the laptop computer and the cell phone. While we might normally think of these as technological advances that provide us with more freedom or flexibility, Foucault would find this to be consistent with the modern impulse to confuse increased surveillance with greater freedom, when in fact it may be the opposite.

The laptop computer allows us to perform computer functions (games, email, word processing) at just about any location. It frees us from the confines of our office. Right? Not necessarily, in many ways it means that we can never leave the office because we can always be working. Sure we can leave the office, but can we ever leave work. With the laptop available, shouldn’t we be getting some extra things done at home? If we do not do so, will we fall behind our colleague or competitors who do continue their work “off hours” at home or at the internet café? As a result, we leave are compelled to put in this additional work. Is this flexibility or a burden.

I once saw a picture that was part of a direct sales promotion. The message was: Wouldn’t it be nice if you could be your own boss (by starting your own business/franchise)? The picture was of a man sitting on a beach in his bathing suit with a laptop on his lap. Now maybe it is because I am not a beach person (or a business person) but I was left wondering why if one went to the beach they would want to bring their work with them (plus, what would the sand do to the laptop?). While the purpose of the image was to show the freedom one would have running this type of business, it made me think of how such a business would never allow me to escape the related burdens and worries.

The cell phone is a newer technology that I love. It allows me to keep in contact with my wife. It allows me to keep in contact with any number of people, whether it is people who I have responsibility for at church or the elementary school that my children attend. In fact, my cell phone doubles as my laptop and I used it to write a good junk of this post.

Once, my son missed the bus while playing in a neighbor’s tree. My wife, thinking that he had boarded the bus, left to meet me in town for lunch. While eating lunch, we got a call from a neighbor who told us that Shem had knocked on her door and told her that the bus had not come and his mom was not opening the door. This neighbor gave him a ride to the school. We were comforted by the fact that we could be informed right away about the incident. Of course, finding out faster did not change the situation much. We found out sooner, but still after the fact.

I have found that cell phones make us less patient. We expect to get through to people faster, or at least get a quick return call, whether it is warranted or not. When my wife calls and leaves a message, she expects to get an answer. If not, the question that quickly follows is “where were you?” While this may often be a question of general curiosity, it is also a matter of surveillance; wherever I am my wife would like to have instant access to me. This is convenient when I am grocery shopping and something is left of the list. It is less so when I am running late and I am expected to provide an account of my whereabouts and the cause of the delay. Yet, I am no different. We do not have a land phone line. Therefore, whenever we call each other we are calling the cell of the other spouse. I tend to feel put off when I call and do not get a response.

In many ways, we have confused convenience with freedom. These technologies might expand the extent to which we are mobile but they also expand the extent to which we are controlled, or monitored, by others. Additionally the traditional controlling spheres of the home and the workplace are expanding. Now they extend to wherever we go. While Foucault did not live to see widespread laptop usage and cell phones, he did see that way in which we mistakenly call all things progress whether they really make us free or not. Part of the problem is that we are so overly caught up in the modern social constructs of progress and individual autonomy.

I have recently added an iPad to my postmodern tool kit. Make no mistake…I am enslaved to it. I am also loving every moment of it.

My family has applied to be in the Hill Cumorah Pageant cast this coming summer.

The pageant depicts the story of the Book of Mormon and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon through Joseph Smith. I saw the production once when we lived in Auburn, NY. My wife saw it a couple of time when we lived there. She was also a cast member as a teenager. Now that we have a permanent teaching position, we can do something fun as a family rather than moving this summer.

Now this is a rather cheesy Mormon thing for me to do. However, I am pumped about the possibility of doing this with my wife, two sons, and my daughter. Our comfort zones will be stretched for sure. It will also be a taste of missionary work. This is something we are rusty at.

I am personally excited about the possibility of performing. I am much less shy than I was as a teenager. This will be fun. My wife thinks I will make a good King Noah. I am not sure what to make of that.

“There is no merit before God. Nor should there be merit before Him. True community does not count the merits of its members. Merit is a concept rooted in sin, and well disposed of”. 

I posted part of the above quote as my Facebook status a few Sundays ago. This is the trouble I cause when my wife is called to substitute in Primary.

The status and the responses resulted in a response by Eric Nielsen at Small and Simple.

I wanted to follow up on the idea of merit.

This quote is from the 1942 senior thesis of the philosopher John Rawls. It is a theology thesis. His original career plan had been to go into the clergy. Over the next four years, while serving in World War II, he would lose his faith and turn to secular moral philosophy. I am grateful for that turn. His thesis, along with some related essays has recently been published by Harvard University Press.

The thesis is still a senior thesis and no necessarily a great work of theology or philosophy. Yet, it fascinates me because it shows the theological roots of what will later become one of the greatest works in secular moral and political philosophy…A Theory of Justice.

I have long found similarities between Rawls’ treatment of desert (whether deserve and therefore have moral claim on social status) and Hugh Nibley’s view that the lunch is always free because we are not responsible for having lunch…God is. Nibley condemned the dominance of Social Darwinism in our thought and Rawls did the same thing.

For Rawls, the problem mostly arises when we view ourselves as having merit.

“The human person, once perceiving that the Revelation of the Word is a condemnation of the self, casts away all thoughts of his own merit . . . . The more he examines his life, the more he looks into himself with complete honesty, the more clearly he perceives that what he has is a gift. Suppose he was an upright man in the eyes of society, then he will now say to himself: “So you were an educated man, yes, but who paid for your education; so you were a good man and upright, yes, but who taught you your good manners and so provided you with good fortune that you did not need to steal; so you were a man of a loving disposition and not like the hard-hearted, yes, but who raised you in a good family, who showed you care and affection when you were young so that you would grow up to appreciate kindness – must you not admit that what you have, you have received? Then be thankful and cease your boasting”.”

Let’s compare this take on merit with that expresses by Lehi in 2 Nephi Chapter 2:

8. Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
While we may need to take upon ourselves certain covenants and ordinances, none of this leads to us having merit unto salvation. It is only through the merits of Jesus Christ.

Yet, we want to be deemed with merit ourselves. I must be doing better than others. I am working so hard. I must, therefore, be a more valiant servant.

Now, many are doing good. Many of you are the most loving people I know of. However, we all must rely on His merits for salvation. To recognize this is an important step. The humility which comes from recognizing our nothingness also allows us to follow Him.

Some people equate the nothingness of man with the idea that humans are evil. We can be, that is for sure. But we are naturally good. Yet, we live in a world that entices us to be carnal and greedy. Let us reject that world and seek after Him who is good.

With 71% of precincts reporting, the AP has called the Nevada U.S. Senate race for Harry Reid.

When I saw this reported on Real Clear Politics, I got teary. Tears of joy.

The Democrats got crushed Tuesday, but the re-election of Reid will be one of the best political moments of my life.

As a Mormon Dem, we have few victories..but Harry Reid is still in the U.S. Senate. I am going to bed happy.

Welcome to our open thread for the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.

All are welcome.

The rally will be live on Comedy Central and C-Span.

It will also be streamed at: http://www.comedycentral.com/

The start time is noon eastern/10 am mountain. (Update: the main program starts at 1pm eastern/11am mountain).

Here is the tentative schedule (times are eastern):

PRESHOW — 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.
12:00 – 12:40 — THE ROOTS will play for the crowd.
12:40 – 12:57 — Comedian (TBD) will warm-up the audience.
12:57 – 1:00 — Video countdown & intros
SHOW — 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
1:00 – 1:05 SINGING OF THE NATIONAL ANTHEM — Musical guest (TBD)
1:05 – 1:20 JON STEWART welcomes the crowd
1:20 – 1:30 STEPHEN COLBERT enters
1:30 – 1:35 BENEDICTION by actor Don Novello
1:35 – 1:40 POEM read by actor Sam Waterson [note: Park Service spelling, not WaPo TeamTV’s]
1:40 – 1:50 JEFF TWEEDY & MAVIS STAPLES perform
1:50 – 2:15 JON & STEPHEN perform
2:15 – 2:20 SHERYL CROW performs
2:20 – 2:30 SPEAKERS Guests make brief statements, both LIVE and TAPE (TBD)
2:30 – 2:40 MUSICAL GUEST (TBD)
2:40 – 2:40 SANITY & FEAR awards – PRETAPED footage.
2:50 – 3:00 JON AND STEPHEN’S FINAL STATEMENTS

On Saturday at noon eastern time/10 am Mountain time, the rally on the mall in Washington, DC hosted by John Stewart and Stephen Colbert will begin. Here at FPR, I will be hosting an open thread for those of us watching on TV.

We started this month with General Conference and we will end it will Stewart and Colbert. My kind of October (that, and it has been quite warm here in Casper).

I will be watching the rally because I love their comedy. I do not view it as a rally for moderation as some have said. I love Stewart and Colbert because they loathe the same people I loathe. It is Northeastern elitist cynicism at it’s finest.

On the open thread post, I will have more information on where to watch. I do know that it will be covered by Comedy Central (both TV and online) and by CSPAN.